Skipio I believe the silencer evidence was unreliable due to the way it was found.
Just as I predicted you did more dancing and avoided addressing the specific questions put to you.
I asked you simple enough questions.
Scipio: "Rules of evidence are not relevant to what you believe. You have 3 choices:
1) You believe the blood sprayed into the suppressor during the murders
2) You believe the blood was transferred there by someone. If this is the case explain who transferred it and how and what evidence you have to support your belief.
3) You believe it was planted by family or police. Explain who you think planted it, how they could have accomplished such and what evidence you have to support your belief."
You hid from these questions because you can't point to anything specific to suggest the blood was planted by police or the cousins or that it could accidentally find itself inside the suppressor by innocent transfer somehow. Nor anything to establish the cousins were absolute masterminds by scraping the suppressor all around the underside of the mantle hoping that police would A) take the suppressor from them and test it B) successfully figure out on their own that the paint came from underneath the mantle and 3) be able to prove conclusively the paint came from the mantle. You refuse to commit to any theory of how the blood could have surreptitiously gotten inside or the paint on it. Instead you just make a generalized claim it could have somehow happened other than during the murders and thus is unreliable. That is not good enough for this board let alone a court.
We are not in court and yet you must explain how you believe the evidence got there other than during the murders in order to establish that it is a reasonable possibility.
In court you have to go an extra step and have a witness claim he believes such and to explain how the claim has a reasonable possibility based on solid scientific principles. On TV they show lawyers making statements while questioning witnesses but in the real world the lawyer statements come during opening and closing arguments only. When it comes to witnesses we have to ask actual questions not give diatribes. To prove a witness wrong we have to call a witness to rebut their claims not like on TV where a lawyer rattles things off that were never admitted into evidence to challenge the witness.
However you are right I am not a lawyer but I know a man who is a non-practicing UK criminal barrister and this is what he said about Geoffrey Rivlin presenting contamination to the jury.
"JB was effectively told by Rivlin what line should be followed by the defence at trial. JB in reality had very little say in the matter. The Bar Code of Conduct would not have prevented Rivlin from presenting the possibility of dishonest or criminal conduct on the part of prosecution witnesses since there was a sufficient evidential basis to do that (albeit with care). However Rivlin opposed that strategy because he thought the prosecution case was tenuous and an acquital was anticipated upon the basis of reasonable doubt. He did not want to cloud the issue by basing the defence upon a proposition which required the jury to disbelieve family members and some police officers. With hindisight (and some would say even without the benefit of hindsight) this strategy was wrong."
"There was opportunity and there were also admissions about the attempt to unscrew the silencer and the use of a razor blade to scrape blood. There was evidence of blood stained clothing removed from the house. There was sufficient to permit cross examination about this and if the possibilities had been explored in cross examination it would have been possible to present this to the jury as a possibility to be considered."
"You misunderstand the rules of evidence and the Bar Code of Conduct. There was nothing to stop Rivlin going down this route, it was a tactical decision which in my view was wrong. Rivlin did not need to rest his entire defence upon the possibility of deliberate or accidental contamination of the silencer, he only needed to lay the basis for presenting it to the jury as a possibilty. Instead he conceded that that the silencer must have been fitted to the rifle at some stage in the shootings and that concession was extremely damaging to JB."
"Bridget, you are really digging a deeper hole for yourself now. A reasonable ground can be an inference which may be drawn from the surrounding circumstances. In this case just dealing with the silencer evidence: i) JB denied being responsible for the murders therefore the defence case was that Sheila had to be responsible, ii) the rifle was discovered by police without the silencer fitted, iii) the silencer was subsequently said to have been found by a relative days later in a box in the cupboard under the stairs, iii) the silencer was removed from WHF, examined and handled by several of the relatives and retained by them for several days, iv) the FSS found blood inside the silencer which was either Sheila's or, less likely, a mixture of Nevill's and June's, v) items of Sheila' bloodstained underwear were removed by a relative from WHF, vi) although possible, the suggestion that Shela had used the rifle with the silencer fitted initially then removed it, placed it in the box in the cupboard and then shot herself, was an unlikely scenario, vi) the only other explanation for the presence of the blood inside the silencer was contamination, either accidental or deliberate.
Against that background Rivlin would have been perfectly entitled to raise the suggestion of contamination, even deliberate contamination, because that was an inference which might be drawn from the evidence. I would go further and say that if Jeremy had insisted Rivlin would have been under an obligation to put such allegations to witnesses and he would have been in breach of the Code of Conduct if he had refused to do so.
There was a high profile case in the 1970s, an IRA bomb trial at the Old Bailey. The head of my chambers was appearing for one of the accused. The evidence against him was that his fingerprints had been discovered on a timer found at the address used by the bombers. The defendant's instructions were i) that he was not involved in the bombing, ii) that he had never seen the timer and had certainly not touched it and had never been at the address where the timer was found. There was no doubt that the fingerprints were a perfect match for the defendant. In the light of those instructions the only basis upon which defence counsel could challenge the prosecution case was by directly alleging that the police had planted the figerprints. He demonstrated that it was possible to take a lift of a finerprint on a glass using sellotape, then deposit it on another surface. The deendant was not surprisingly convicted but counsel had done what he was obliged to deo. The trial judge was the notorious Mr Justice Melford Stephenson. He was of a similar view to Bridget in that he claimed that defence counsel who had pursued this defence had done so without reasonable grounds. He directed that their fees be cut and he reported them to the Bar Counsel. Defence counsel appealed the fees order and sought a ruling from the Bar Counsel. The Bar Counsel robustly supported the position of defence counsel, in a blistering criticism of the judge. The fees reduction was also overturned.
The above example is of a case where the evidential basis for the defence presented was far lower than existed in JB's case in relation to the possibilty of contamination of the silencer.
I do know what I am talking about Bridget, trust me!"
LUCID ISN'T HE SCIPIO?
This supposed attorney who posts on the blue board made some serious mistakes which clearly shows why it is for the best that the attorney is not practicing.
1) The attorney ignored something crucial in the example given. In the example case a witness demonstrated the possibility of a fingerprint being transferred and planted. He didn' just claim it was possible he claimed in detail how it coudl be accomplished. What Witness did Rivlin have who could claim it is possible to transfer blood to the inside of the suppressor during the collection process and explain in detail how the blood could be sprayed onto the first 7 baffles the way his own expert even found the blood had been sprayed? It would be difficult to find someone willing to say such would be possible but worse even if someone were willing to claim such for money he would be torn apart on cross and challenged by prosecution witnesses and the defense's own witness even.
It is not enough to just make the specious claim that anything and everything is possible. You need a witness or other evidence to establish there is a reasonable possibility something could have happened for the possibility to constitute reasonable doubt. If you actually practice in a court you learn that when you make claims it opens the door for the other side to highlight things they otherwise could not or would not. It can sometimes make things worse and backfire tremendously.
The suppressor was not anywhere around Sheila's body when her blood was wet. The contention being made by this supposed lawyer is that the lab could have scraped dry blood and then planted it inside the baffle. That would not account for Rivlin's own forensic expert finding blood on the first 7 baffles. Taking dried blood and dumping it inside would not transfer blood to the first 7 baffles so thoroughly that the blood still remained even after the prosecution removed all the visible blood. The only explanation is that the blood got on all 7 while it was wet. It didn't just drip inside though it sprayed inside touching various baffles in the process. A drip would just touch one area, mist will leave droplets all around inside.
So if he had been Jeremy's lawyer his contamination theory would have been blown apart and in the jury's eyes that would probably hurt all claims the defense makes from that point forward. If a jury has no confidence in a lawyer his client is in big trouble.
Suppose Rivlin hired someone to claim the blood could have been transferred. On cross he would be questioned how it would be possible to transfer it into the suppressor when police didn't collect it when they collected the blood evidence. Moreover, the prosecution would then have someone testify that since the defense's own expert found the blood on the first 7 baffles after all visible blood was removed and that a flake of blood being scraped off her clothing and deposited even on purpose by police would not be able to leave her blood on these baffles in such manner. Then what is left of the defense's claims? They are in tatters.
By writing the following it appears this supposed lawyer doesn't even understand what reasonable doubt is, "However Rivlin opposed that strategy because he thought the prosecution case was tenuous and an acquital was anticipated upon the basis of reasonable doubt" This line of defense that he suggests Rivlin should have used is precisely related to reasonable doubt. The objective of claiming the evidence was planted or contaminated is to establish reasonable doubt. It would have fit perfectly in Rivlin's strategy. Rivlin would have loved to make the claim if he had any way to support it. He had no evidence to support it though. The only way for blood to get on the baffles in the manner discovered by the defense's expert is if the blood had sprayed inside while it was wet. If dried flakes had been planted inside or forced inside accidentally then when those flakes were removed no trace of blood would remain. The blood was wet when it entered the suppressor and in order for it to touch each of the first 7 baffles it sprayed inside it didn't drip. What accidental transfer could account for this? Even doing it on purpose would take quite an effort.
" The Bar Code of Conduct would not have prevented Rivlin from presenting the possibility of dishonest or criminal conduct on the part of prosecution witnesses since there was a sufficient evidential basis to do that (albeit with care)."
What is this sufficient evidentiary basis? It is easy to claim there is a basis on a message board. The lawyer needs to explain what that basis is to prove his claim is true. It isn't true though.
The suppressor was not collected with other evidence so police had no way to contaminate it on the scene. The defense had no evidentiary basis for suggesting it was contaminated in the lab either.
The defense had no evidentiary basis to suggest it was intentionally contaminated by anyone. This lawyer is suggesting that Rivlin should have argued simply that it was possible. In theory it is always possible to plant evidence but that means nothing the theoretical possibility doesn't rise to reasonable doubt. Indeed that leads me to number 2.
2) This lawyer is ignoring that the criminal in the example he gave was convicted. Just saying that in theory it is possible police planted his finger print did not save him. The defense needed to prove at the very least that there was a reasonable possibility it was planted for reasonable doubt to exist. Why should anyone think that if Rivlin made specious claims in the same manner it would have had a better result than the defendant in that case?
It would have had even a worse result because as I explained above the prosecution had a scientific basis to challenge the claim. The suppressor didn't have paint chips in it , it has blood sprayed inside on the first 7 baffles. The prosecution cleaned off all the visible blood and yet substantial traces remained on those 7 baffles. The remaining traces were so substantial that the defense was able to determine each of the first 7 baffles had human blood, was able to lift the traces of blood and even able to determine this blood was Sheila's blood group or a remote possibility it was June and Nevill's blood mixed. If the blood traces were not substantial then no blood type testing would have been possible. If Rivlin argued it was planted or contaminated then his own expert could be used to testify against his claims. That not only is bad for the client but the attorney can face discipline if the attorney had no valid basis for the claim which would be the case if his own witness denied it was likely or possible.
How would that look to a jury? Prosecution and defense experts say that contamination or planting would not be possible unless someone took wet blood and sprayed it inside. It is reaosnable to think someone took wet blood and sprayed it inside? That pretty much tells the jury the blood definitely got there from the murder and that the defense can't be trusted because they are trying to distort. It harms credibility and makes Jeremy look guilty.
Rivlin went with what he could argue. The prosecution's own witness agreed that there was a remote possibility the blood was June and Nevill's not Sheila's. He tried to get the witness to agree describe the possibilty in the best light possible for the defense but the witness would not budge much. The best he could get was the admission of a remote possibility and he hoped that was enough to raise doubt in the juror's minds but obviously it wasn't enough.
Be honest Holly. If you were a juror and the defense's own witness was used against them to argue that the blood being found on the baffles after the prosecution already cleaned them proves the blood was sprayed on very finely with substantial force would you really believe it was accidentally transferred? Do you really believe that cops or relatives accidentally sprayed wet blood of the same blood type as Sheilas inside the suppressor?
Do you really believe that cops or relatives intentionally sprayed wet blood of the same blood type as Sheilas inside the suppressor?
If you answer no to both questions then you have no basis at all to believe that Jeremy is innocent and it means you just claim he is innocent knowing that in fact he is guilty. In order for Jeremy to be innocent someone had to have taken wet blood of the same group as Sheilas and sprayed it inside the suppressor either accidentally or on purpose.
This doesn't take into account the paint even. The paint can't have been accidentally transferred, the suppressor would have to be intentionally scraped against the mantle. The police didn't have the suppressor with them at the house so how could they scrape the suppressor against the mantle when they visited to try to figure out what the paint was from? Obviously the cousins are the only ones in a position to do that. Maybe if the cousins had suggested it had scratched the mantle that would be suspicious. They didn't though they had no idea if the paint held any significance. How would they be sure the police would not only be able to figure out they scraped the mantle with it but know the police had the scientific skill to match the paint conclusively? But Rivlin should have told the jury it was a possibility though he had no evidentiary basis to suggest it happened just to suggest this is possible and this was supposed to sway the jury to acquit? This would not sway the jury anymore than the possibility of a fingerprint being transferred swayed the jury in the cited case and worse yet Rivlin would look foolish to the jury claiming such so it would hurt his credibility for the remainder of the case.
Another thing is that it is hard to claim Jeremy was railroaded when police initially bought his BS and the shoddy collection procedures actually worked in his favor. How do you argue police were out to get him and were staging evidence when they treated the scene as murder suicide based on his say so? The sloppy procedures you are complaining of were the result of not suspecting Jeremy. That tend to negate a claim they were biased against him and trying to set him up. Indeed they failed to follow usual procedures like seizing the clothing he was wearing and documenting any damage to his body. Some police say they saw some marks on his hands but this was never documented so they could not try to use such as evidence.
If there was a gray hair attached to the suppressor the loss of it hurt the prosecution not the defense. The supposed sloppy procedures were to Jeremy's advantage so it is hard to claim he was the victim of a police conspiracy. This is another reason why making the specious claim would have been a waste of time and harmed the credibility of the defense. Perhaps even more important, the prosecution was not permitted to tell the jury that a gray hair had been attached to the suppressor. If the defense brings up the issue of the lost gray hair then guess what- the jury gets to learn about it from the defense. So they get to hear there was a gray hair attached and have more reason to think it was used during the murders. That is a classic mistake. It is a mistake which happens with more frequency than should be the case. A number of times evidence that I was not allowed to raise ended up getting admitted anyway because of stupid adversaries who opened the door unintentionally. You never want to open pandoras box. You want to make things as uncomplicated as possible for a jury.
Rivlin had crappy facts to work with and in the end that is why he lost.
